• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It comes down to this:

Emmerson Biggins said:
Where or how can you prove that he didn't believe it?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. If he believed it was stolen, which he obviously didn't believe, his recourse would have been to have it investigated, not to commit crimes!

Amusingly enough, they did create sham law suits, and some 63 or so were all lost...most dismissed outright because they were obviously phony suits designed to help give smoke and cover so the rubes have something to point to other than the fact that Trump lost the election.

Trump said he could get away with murder and you MAGAs would still support him, and he was right.
 
Emmerson Biggins said:
Meaning information for witnesses he is seeing after the indictment. As I mentioned, he has not finished his investigation. He said that. The grand jury is entitled to all of the information. How can they have that if his investigation was not concluded?
Click to expand...
The Prosecution is not required to show exculpatory material to the Grand Jury. The job of the Grand Jury is to Indict, not to either convict or acquit. Once a Prosecutor asserts to himself that he has done enough to ask the Grand Jury for an Indictment his duty is to ask for that Indictment.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Then when the evidence for both sides gets presented, he should have nothing to worry about, right?
Click to expand...
It's not about evidence. It's about spin and nonsense.

The corrupt Trump haters are bringing their spin and nonsense into the court room.
 
Emmerson Biggins said:
If no actions were taken, sure he does.
Click to expand...
Actions were taken. Trump did engage in conspiracies to overthrow the government. Fraudulent electors did gather and try to press their case. Trump did call numerous state officials in an attempt to convince them to commit fraud on his behalf. Trump did try to sic the DoJ on states.

Emmerson Biggins said:
Do you believe that Trump was sincere in saying that the election was stolen? If so, he can't be guilty.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. And yes, he can.

The indictment lists numerous ways that we know he was lying, including:
• Pence telling him he saw no fraud
• Senior DoJ staffers, that he appointed, repeatedly told him there was no evidence of fraud
• The DNI ruled out foreign interference
• CISA and other agencies told him the election was "the most secure in US history"
• Multiple senior White House attorneys told him there was no fraud
• Senior Trump campaign staffers told him on 11/7 that he had a 5-10% chance of winning
• State officials repeatedly told him there was no fraud
• Quoting directly: "State and federal courts the neutral arbiters responsible for ensuring the fair and even-handed administration of election laws rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the Defendant, his coconspirators, and allies, providing the Defendant real-time notice that his allegations were meritless."

And it goes on. Read the f****** indictment.

Anyway: Even if he 100% believed that the election was stolen, that STILL doesn't justify attempts to overthrow the government. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Emmerson Biggins said:
Do you believe that anyone acted on those request? If they didn't he isn't guilty.
Click to expand...
We know they did, and it doesn't matter. He conspired to overthrow the government, and took concrete actions in an attempt to carry out the conspiracy. That's why he's indicted.

Emmerson Biggins said:
Do you believe that any politician who had millions of voters vote for him has the right to question the results and ask for actions to protect those voter's votes?
Click to expand...
He had the right to question the results -- and oddly enough, he wasn't indicted for any of the legal methods that he used to contest the election, such as demanding recounts and filing dozens of court cases. He was indicted for the illegal attempts to invalidate the results.

Emmerson Biggins said:
During some of the riots our nation endured, Maxine Waters said, "Well, we gotta stay on the street, and we’ve got to get more active...."
Click to expand...
Again!!! Trump was not indicted for inciting the 1/6 riot. Good grief.

You clearly haven't read the indictment, you clearly have no idea what's going on. You really ought to read it before commenting further.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.

By calling them unindicted co-conspirators, Smith has made it clear that he can indeed bring charges if he chooses to do so. What he is waiting for now is to see which, if any, of the co-conspirators wish to cooperate. He is giving them an opportunity to control their own fates. The charges he brings, if any, will depend largely on how they respond to him. All he is asking of them is to tell the truth to the questions he asks of them. Initially, they won't even have to testify in front of the jury. If they tell the truth, he may be willing to either reduce the charges against them, and/or request the judge be lenient in sentencing, if it comes to that.

This arrangement happens everyday in every jurisdiction. But you already know that. Trump is being treated no better or worse than any other defendant.
Click to expand...

WTH?!? What procecuter in their right mind would enter into a plea deal to someone who was never charged with a crime?!?

If they tell the truth, he may be willing to either reduce the charges against them, and/or request the judge be lenient in sentencing, if it comes to that.
Click to expand...

So are they charged or not charged!?! The flip flop in the same post makes no sense.
 
Emmerson Biggins said:
Where or how can you prove that he didn't believe it? I have read the document two times. I didn't find any place in the document where this evidence is listed. Please let me know where this is located and I'll go look at it.
Click to expand...

They don't put all the evidence in the indictment.

Nevertheless, there's a lot of evidence in there (and in the public record) that suggests that Trump knew he had lost - including countless advisors and lawyers telling him that he lost, and testimony from some of those advisors who he told that he knew he'd lost.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
WTH?!? What procecuter in their right mind would enter into a plea deal to someone who was never charged with a crime?!?
Click to expand...

The fact that thet haven't been charged yet does not mean they won't be charged later.

Plea deals happen before charges are filed all the time.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The fact that thet haven't been charged yet does not mean they won't be charged later.

Plea deals happen before charges are filed all the time.
Click to expand...

Sounds like grounds for a mistrial. Charging with a crime with an offer of a plea deal is legal. Coercing witnesses without being charged is likely illegal. Like witness tampering.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
WTH?!? What procecuter in their right mind would enter into a plea deal to someone who was never charged with a crime?!?



So are they charged or not charged!?! The flip flop in the same post makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Prosecutor: I have enough evidence to charge you with conspiracy, etc., etc. etc. and that's what I'm going to do. However, if you cooperate I may be inclined to reduce the charge to blah, blah, blah. Talk it over with your lawyer and let me know what you would like me to do. No hurry. I've got some other folks to talk to in the meantime. I think you may know a couple of them. By the way, I'll be offering them the same deal. Ask your lawyer what that means for you.
 
jnug said:
The Prosecution is not required to show exculpatory material to the Grand Jury. The job of the Grand Jury is to Indict, not to either convict or acquit. Once a Prosecutor asserts to himself that he has done enough to ask the Grand Jury for an Indictment his duty is to ask for that Indictment.
Click to expand...
If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. How would they know if they have that evidence if their investigation is not completed?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Prosecutor: I have enough evidence to charge you with conspiracy, etc., etc. etc. and that's what I'm going to do. However, if you cooperate I may be inclined to reduce the charge to blah, blah, blah. Talk it over with your lawyer and let me know what you would like me to do. No hurry. I've got some other folks to talk to in the meantime. I think you may know a couple of them. By the way, I'll be offering them the same deal. Ask your lawyer what that means for you.
Click to expand...

Or, as you said, not to charge them at all. Which brings me to the question can a procecutor make a plea deal for someone who hasn't been charged with a crime. The procecutor is essentially coercing someone's testimony in exchange for not charging them.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Sounds like grounds for a mistrial. Charging with a crime with an offer of a plea deal is legal. Coercing witnesses without being charged is likely illegal. Like witness tampering.
Click to expand...
You are clueless.

Prosecutor: Tell me the truth . . . or join your friend at the defendant's table. The choice is yours.

Witness: YOUR HONOR! He's coercing me to tell the truth! Can he do that?

Judge: No, you have the 5th amendment right to refuse to speak. Even if the prosecutor charges you, you will always have the right to refuse to speak. You cannot be forced. Ask your lawyer about that.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
You are clueless.

Prosecutor: Tell me the truth . . . or join your friend at the defendant's table. The choice is yours.

Witness: YOUR HONOR! He's coercing me to tell the truth! Can he do that?

Judge: No, you have the 5th amendment right to refuse to speak. Even if the prosecutor charges you, you will always have the right to refuse to speak. You cannot be forced. Ask your lawyer about that.
Click to expand...

So no one can't:

A defendant may only plead guilty if they actually committed the crime and admits to doing so in open court before the judge.
Click to expand...

They can't plea bargain for a crime not being charged.

www.justice.gov

Plea Bargaining

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
 
Emmerson Biggins said:
If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. How would they know if they have that evidence if their investigation is not completed?
Click to expand...
Must divulge it to whom? And when?

Answer: Prosecutors are only required to divulge exculpatory evidence to the defendant's defense counsel. They are not required to present such evidence to the grand jury. There is no defendant until the grand jury returns an indictment charging someone. And then, the trial date will be set and the prosecution will turn over ALL evidence to the defense counsel in a timely manner to allow time for the defense to review and prepare cross examinations.

Criminal Trial Law 101.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Sounds like grounds for a mistrial. Charging with a crime with an offer of a plea deal is legal. Coercing witnesses without being charged is likely illegal. Like witness tampering.
Click to expand...
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

There is no problem whatsoever with a prosecutor offering deals before any actual charges are filed. It's downright routine.
 
Craig234 said:
As I said in the other thread, read the indictment. There's a whole section showing trump knew he was lying about the election.
Click to expand...
And lying is literally baked into his DNA. It's who he is. It's who he's always been.

Good job Christians.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
So no one can't:



They can't plea bargain for a crime not being charged.

www.justice.gov

Plea Bargaining

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
Click to expand...
Oh, there's going to be a crime charged. What that crime is, is up to the discretion of the prosecutor, provided a) he has evidence to support the charge. Further, the defendant in a plea bargain will not only plead guilty, he will articulate his role in the crime to the court to the point that the court believes the defendant understands b) what he is pleading guilty to, and c) that he is being truthful in his allocution to the court. Failing one of those 3 elements, the court will throw out the plea bargain.
 
Emmerson Biggins said:
If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. How would they know if they have that evidence if their investigation is not completed?
Click to expand...
:LOL:

They have more than enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict the former POTUS. Smith already knows they aren't going to suddenly turn up something that magically refutes every claim they've made.

The prosecution isn't required to provide all the evidence before the indictment. They just have to provide evidence before the end of the discovery phase -- and that takes months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom